Evaluating the Extent of Ill-Structured Problem Solving Process among Pre-Service Teachers in an Asynchronous Online Discussion and Reflection Log Learning Environment
Available accessResearch articleFirst published online April, 2004
Evaluating the Extent of Ill-Structured Problem Solving Process among Pre-Service Teachers in an Asynchronous Online Discussion and Reflection Log Learning Environment
Most educators increasingly regard ill-structured problem solving as an important objective of learning and have sought various means to achieve it. In this article, we describe a learning environment to help pre-service teachers in Singapore solve ill-structured problems. There are four key dimensions in our learning environment: tutor-led face-to-face tutorial, face-to-face discussion among participants, asynchronous online discussion, and a reflection log. The goal of this study was to investigate the roles of asynchronous online discussion and reflection logs in supporting ill-structured problem solving. Findings indicated that the use of asynchronous online discussion in an Asian context appears to mainly support two types of ill-structured problem solving processes, “Articulate the problem space” and “Generate possible problem solutions,” while the reflection log seems to facilitate the processes of “Assessing the viability of alternative solutions” and “Monitor the problem space and solution options.” The pre-service teachers' perceptions on using the asynchronous online discussion and reflection log were also reported.
References
1.
BodzinA. M.ParkJ. C. (2000). Dialogue patterns of preservice science teachers using asynchronous computer-mediated communications on the World Wide Web. Journal of Computers in M athematics and Science Teaching, 19(2), 161–194.
2.
BruffeeK. A. (1993). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the authority of knowledge. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
3.
ChenP.McGrathD. (2003). Knowledge construction and knowledge representation in high school students' design of hypermedia documents. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 12(1), 33–61.
4.
DedeC. J. (1992). The future of multimedia: Bridging to virtual worlds. Educational Technology, 32(5), 54–60.
5.
DennenV. P. (2001). The design and facilitation of asynchronous discussion activities in Web-based courses: Implications for instructional design theory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Indiana University Bloomington.
6.
DickW. (1992). An instructional designer's view of constructivism. In DuffyT. M.JonassenD. H. (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction. A Conversation (pp. 91–98). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
7.
DuffyT.JonassenD. (1991). New implications for instructional technology?Educational Technology, 5, 7–12.
8.
DuffyT.CunninghamD. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In JonassenD. H. (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. New York: Simon and Schuster Macmillan.
9.
EtherisA. I.TanS. C. (2004). Computer-supported collaborative problem solving and anchored instruction in a mathematics classroom: An exploratory study. International Journal of Learning Technology, 1(1), 16–39.
10.
FauskeJ.WadeS. E. (2003–2004). Research to practice online: Conditions that foster democracy, community, and critical thinking in computer-mediated discussions. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(2), 137–153.
11.
FeenbergA. (1987). Computer conferencing and the humanities. Instructional Science, 16(2), 169–186.
12.
GarrisonD. R. (1993). Quality and theory in distance education: Theoretical considerations. In KeeganD. (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education. New York: Routledge.
13.
GanevaI. (1999). Native and non-native speakers' participation in educational asynchronous computer conferencing: A case study. Unpublished Master thesis. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto.
14.
GroelingT. (1999). Virtual discussion: Web-based discussion forums in political science. Paper presented at the 1999 National Convention of the American Political Science Association, Atlanta, Georgia.
15.
HarasimL. (1989). On-line education as a new domain. In MasonR. D.KayA. R. (Eds.), Mindweave: Communication, Computers and Distance Education. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1989.
16.
HawkesM. (2000). Structuring computer-mediated communication for collaborative teacher development. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 33(4), 268–277.
17.
HawkesM.DennisT. (2003). Supporting and assessing online interactions in higher education. Educational Technology, 43(4), 52–56.
18.
HewK. F.CheungW. S. (2003). Evaluating the participation and quality of thinking of pre-service teachers in an asynchronous online discussion environment: Part I. International Journal of Instructional Media, 30(3), 247–262.
19.
HsiS.HoadleyC. (1997). Productive discussion in science: Gender equity through electronic discourse. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 6(1), 23–36.
20.
HolyoakK. J. (1991). Problem solving. In OshersonD. N.SmithE. E. (Eds.), An invitation to cognitive science (pp. 117–146). Cambridge: MIT.
21.
HungD. (1998). Epistemological change through peer apprenticeship learning: From rule-based to idea-based social constructivism. International Journal of Computers for Mathematics Learning, 3(1), 45–80.
22.
HungD. (2001). Theories of learning and computer-mediated instructional technologies. Education Media International, 38(4), 281–287.
23.
JonassenD. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology, Research & Development, 45(1), 65–94.
24.
JonassenD. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology, Research & Development, 48(4), 63–85.
25.
JonassenD. H. (2002). Engaging and supporting problem solving in online learning. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(1), 1–13.
26.
JonassenD. H.KwonH. (2001). Communication patterns in computer mediated versus face-to-face group problem solving. Educational Technology, Research & Development, 49(1), 35–51.
27.
KaganD. (1993). Contexts for the use of classroom cases. American Educational Research Journal, 30(4), 703–723.
28.
KitchnerK. S. (1983). Cognition, metacognition, and epistemic cognition: A three-level model of cognitive processing. Human Development, 26, 222–232.
29.
MayerR. E. (1992). Thinking, problem solving, cognition (2nd ed.). New York: Freeman.
30.
McCabeM. F. (1998). Lessons from the field: Computer conferencing in higher education. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 7(1), 71–87.
31.
McFarlaneA. E.WilliamsJ. M.BonnettM. (2000). Assessment and multimedia authoring—A tool for externalising understanding. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16(3), 201–212.
32.
MeachamJ. A.EmontN. C. (1989). The interpersonal basis of everyday problem solving. In SinnottJ. D. (Ed.), Everyday problem solving: Theory and applications (pp. 7–23). New York: Praeger.
33.
MorganD. L. (1993). Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art. Newbury Park: Sage.
34.
NewellA.SimonH. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
35.
PhyeG. D. (2001). Problem-solving instruction and problem-solving transfer: The correspondence issue. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 571–578.
36.
RomiszowskiA. J.MasonR. (1996). Computer-mediated communication. In JonassenD. H. (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 438–456). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
37.
SchönD. A. (1990). The design process. In HowardV. A. (Ed.), Varieties of thinking: Essays from Harvard's philosophy of education (pp. 110–141). New York: Routledge.
38.
ShinN.JonassenD. H.McGeeS. (2003). Predictors of well-structured and ill-structured problem solving in an astronomy simulation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(1), 6–33.
39.
SinnottJ. D. (1989). A model for solution of ill-structured problems: Implications for everyday and abstract problem solving. In SinnottJ. D. (Ed.), Everyday problem solving: Theory and application (pp. 72–99). New York: Praeger.
40.
VanessaP. D. (2001). The design and facilitation of asynchronous discussion activities in web-based courses: Implications for instructional design theory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University Bloomington.
41.
VossJ. F. (1988). Learning and transfer in subject-matter learning: A problem solving model. International Journal of Educational Research, 11, 607–622.
42.
VossJ. F.MeansM. L. (1989). Toward a model of creativity based upon problem solving in the social sciences. In GloverJ. A.RonningR. R.ReynoldsC. R. (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 399–410). New York: Plenum.
43.
VossJ. F.PostT. A. (1988). On the solving of ill-structured problems. In ChiM. H.GlaserR.FarrM. J. (Eds.), The nature of expertise (pp. 261–285). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
44.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
WuA. (2003). Supporting electronic discourse: Principles of design from a social constructivist perspective. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 14(2), 167–184.
